Question for those pushing a "living wage"

[SAYIT]

What happens to people who work 40 hours a week and do not make enough to support their families?
Answer: The taxpayer makes up the difference

Who should be responsible for supporting the person who works all week for you? The employer or the taxpayer?

And that is just plain wrong. They should work 60 (or 70) hours and be responsible for supporting themselves.

 

[SAYIT]

Who should be responsible for supporting the person who works all week for you? The employer or the taxpayer?

Neither.

You only have 2 choices. Thats what republicans refuse to admit

There's more than 2 choices and that's what lefties refuse to admit. If a 40 hr work week doesn't support your life choices, get a second (or better paying) job.

 

[SAYIT]

There are two aspects to your question.

1. Does the Wal-Mart worker with six kids work as best he can, and does he support the six kids to the best of his ability OR is he a malinger? Both answers are possibilities. If he is not a malinger, then there is no moral or civil reason NOT to want his and his family's outcome to be a liveable wage. I leave the definition of that to others.

2. Assuming he is not a malinger, then the question becomes to what extent can society help. We have flat or declining wages for the middle class, so I'd say asking them for a little help is not only impossible but politically a non-starter. But can his and his family's situation be improved with little impact upon other workers? Given the increasing wealth dispartity, I think the answer's an obvious yes.



<Obamacare question snipped, in part because it refers to technical matters I don't know about>

So if a stocker at Wal-Mart is a good worker, he should be able to expect to support a family of 8 on his stocker wages?

Should every Wal-Mart stocker receive a high enough wage to support a family of 8?

I had to actually work so I didn't respond to your direct question yesterday. (-:

I think yes, and it seems to me we pretty much do. I assume from your hypothetical that the worker's family gets housing assistance from the feds and perhaps the state, the family gets nutrition assistance and the kids get Medicaid though Schips, and if they live in a family where Obamacare expanded Medicaid, so do mom and dad.

Obamacare aside, I don't have a problem with it. My problem is the adults who used to call me to inquire how to get their kids in spec ed, so as to entitle them to the "crazy check" also known as SSI.

You seem to be saying our nanny gov't makes it possible (perhaps sensible) for some workers to shirk their RESPONSIBILITIES and dump them on the rest of us.

 

[bendog]

you seem to be saying it is only right if the labor rate is set at the lowest possible denominator by "the invisible hand" of a market.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Neither.

You only have 2 choices. Thats what republicans refuse to admit

There's more than 2 choices and that's what lefties refuse to admit. If a 40 hr work week doesn't support your life choices, get a second (or better paying) job.

Now tell me how the job market has so many jobs that this is an option. When you cant you'll see where you're falling short. You are ignoring the world and reality

 

[dblack]

You only have 2 choices. Thats what republicans refuse to admit

Wow. You really believe that? How about people taking responsibility for supporting themselves?

How about you only have 2 choices in reality. If we are playing your hypothetical game then we can ignore reality.

I'm not playing a game, and it's not hypothetical. I don't understand why you'd want someone else to be responsible for you. Assigning them that responsibility gives them power over you. It justifies them superseding your personal, potentially irresponsible, decisions.

To wit: how can you hold an employer responsible for their employees having enough to live on if they have no control over their employee's family budgets? Should the employer pay the compulsive gambler more because they piss all their money away on bad bets? Or should the employer have the power to dictate how much the family spends on food and entertainment, so as to ensure they have enough to support themselves?

When you make someone else responsible for your well-being, you give them power over you. You essentially put yourself in the position of the slave, someone who is dependent on the generosity, and subject to the abuse, of whoever is 'responsible' for them.

 

[ClosedCaption]

Wow. You really believe that? How about people taking responsibility for supporting themselves?

How about you only have 2 choices in reality. If we are playing your hypothetical game then we can ignore reality.

I'm not playing a game, and it's not hypothetical. I don't understand why you'd want someone else to be responsible for you. Assigning them that responsibility gives them power over you. It justifies them superseding your personal, potentially irresponsible, decisions.

To wit: how can you hold an employer responsible for their employees having enough to live on if they have no control over their employee's family budgets? Should the employer pay the compulsive gambler more because they piss all their money away on bad bets? Or should the employer have the power to dictate how much the family spends on food and entertainment, so as to ensure they have enough to support themselves?

When you make someone else responsible for your well-being, you give them power over you. You essentially put yourself in the position of the slave, someone who is dependent on the generosity, and subject to the abuse, of whoever is 'responsible' for them.

Hey tell me what other choices there are if there are more. Ones that are based in reality would be great. Thanks.

 

[dblack]

How about you only have 2 choices in reality. If we are playing your hypothetical game then we can ignore reality.

I'm not playing a game, and it's not hypothetical. I don't understand why you'd want someone else to be responsible for you. Assigning them that responsibility gives them power over you. It justifies them superseding your personal, potentially irresponsible, decisions.

To wit: how can you hold an employer responsible for their employees having enough to live on if they have no control over their employee's family budgets? Should the employer pay the compulsive gambler more because they piss all their money away on bad bets? Or should the employer have the power to dictate how much the family spends on food and entertainment, so as to ensure they have enough to support themselves?

When you make someone else responsible for your well-being, you give them power over you. You essentially put yourself in the position of the slave, someone who is dependent on the generosity, and subject to the abuse, of whoever is 'responsible' for them.

Hey tell me what other choices there are if there are more. Ones that are based in reality would be great. Thanks.

You don't accept people taking responsibility for their own support "reality"?

 

[Skull Pilot]

What happens to people who work 40 hours a week and do not make enough to support their families?
Answer: The taxpayer makes up the difference

Who should be responsible for supporting the person who works all week for you? The employer or the taxpayer?

How about he takes responsibility for himself and does whatever it takes to pay his bills?

And I'd like an answer to the question I have asked over and over.

Since when have we ever had the notion that one 40 hour a week job have to pay enough to be the sole support for anyone?

Everyone I know has worked more than one 40 hour a week job at some point in their lives.

And no one who has ever really accomplished anything has only ever worked 40 hours a week.

 

[bendog]

What happens to people who work 40 hours a week and do not make enough to support their families?
Answer: The taxpayer makes up the difference

Who should be responsible for supporting the person who works all week for you? The employer or the taxpayer?

How about he takes responsibility for himself and does whatever it takes to pay his bills?

And I'd like an answer to the question I have asked over and over.

Since when have we ever had the notion that one 40 hour a week job have to pay enough to be the sole support for anyone?

Everyone I know has worked more than one 40 hour a week job at some point in their lives.

And no one who has ever really accomplished anything has only ever worked 40 hours a week.

I just didn't see the pt in responding. Whenever I worked for an hourly rate I was grateful for OT and time and a half, and so was everybody else on the job. When I worked for fee for service, I was grateful for customers. Working on a straight salary, I just try to get my stuff done, at the office or home.\

So, I don't see any assumption by me or anyone else that 40 hours was the max. Perhaps with the San Francisco city council or someplace. Rather, to me it's whether people should have to work 80 hours or even three jobs and still not have healthcare.

 

[ClosedCaption]

I'm not playing a game, and it's not hypothetical. I don't understand why you'd want someone else to be responsible for you. Assigning them that responsibility gives them power over you. It justifies them superseding your personal, potentially irresponsible, decisions.

To wit: how can you hold an employer responsible for their employees having enough to live on if they have no control over their employee's family budgets? Should the employer pay the compulsive gambler more because they piss all their money away on bad bets? Or should the employer have the power to dictate how much the family spends on food and entertainment, so as to ensure they have enough to support themselves?

When you make someone else responsible for your well-being, you give them power over you. You essentially put yourself in the position of the slave, someone who is dependent on the generosity, and subject to the abuse, of whoever is 'responsible' for them.

Hey tell me what other choices there are if there are more. Ones that are based in reality would be great. Thanks.

You don't accept people taking responsibility for their own support "reality"?

You seem to have a ton of bullshit questions but cant answer any. Thats how fake logic works you cant even explain it

 

[rightwinger]

What happens to people who work 40 hours a week and do not make enough to support their families?
Answer: The taxpayer makes up the difference

Who should be responsible for supporting the person who works all week for you? The employer or the taxpayer?

And that is just plain wrong. They should work 60 (or 70) hours and be responsible for supporting themselves.

You guys are just clueless

You respond to a problem that affects over 30 million people with a solution that works for a single person

There are not 30 million extra jobs out there so that every person working and needing government assistance can work 60 or 70 hour weeks. Most of these people struggle to find a job that gives them 40 hour weeks
And no, there are not an additional 30 million lawn cutting jobs or babysitting jobs so the working poor can supplement their income

The taxpayer fills the void or the employer fills the void. Who would you rather have do it?

 

[rightwinger]

<most snipped because quotes were messed up>

Right now MW does not even support a ONE PERSON household.

Where I live it does.

Again... ones like wrongwinger refuse to accept that people get roommates, or share bills, or live at home longer, or live in a crappy trailer, or whatever else... you should not, and should never have thought, that minimum wage supports you in a private place with all the shit you want and need...

Do you really think the working poor are not doing that already? Who do you think is living in those crappy trailers? Who do you think is living 12 people to a three bedroom house?

 

[ClosedCaption]

Their solutions always ignore reality.

Dont have enough money? Go get another job!
There arent any jobs? Then go to school
How do I pay for expensive schools and I dont have a job? Get a loan
I cant get a loan because I have no money! Get a Job!

 

[rightwinger]

Their solutions always ignore reality.

Dont have enough money? Go get another job!
There arent any jobs? Then go to school
How do I pay for expensive schools and I dont have a job? Get a loan
I cant get a loan because I have no money! Get a Job!

Right now there are three people available for every open job. These guys think that the working poor have unlimited open jobs open to them and are just too lazy to work 70 hour weeks

 

[Amelia]

Their solutions always ignore reality.

Dont have enough money? Go get another job!
There arent any jobs? Then go to school
How do I pay for expensive schools and I dont have a job? Get a loan
I cant get a loan because I have no money! Get a Job!

Right now there are three people available for every open job. These guys think that the working poor have unlimited open jobs open to them and are just too lazy to work 70 hour weeks

Or perhaps there would be more money available for job training if public money were apportioned more responsibly.

Or perhaps liberals are correct that the minimum wage should be raised and that will add a lot more spending money to the mix so there will be more demand and more jobs will be created in a way which won't cause too much inflation.

Or maybe both.

 

[DiamondDave]

Where I live it does.

Again... ones like wrongwinger refuse to accept that people get roommates, or share bills, or live at home longer, or live in a crappy trailer, or whatever else... you should not, and should never have thought, that minimum wage supports you in a private place with all the shit you want and need...

Do you really think the working poor are not doing that already? Who do you think is living in those crappy trailers? Who do you think is living 12 people to a three bedroom house?

Many many of them are not... you can afford at minimum wage, 4 people living in a crappy 2BR in a cheap part of town... most simply do not want to and think they deserve more... funny how also, rather than improving that situation, they buy Nikes, TV's, internet, video games, beer, or whatever else.. simple thing is, that even with the 'working poor', they spend a lot on non-necessities.. and we then subsidize thru government, their refusal to use their lower earnings for necessities in spite of their frivolity

 

[kwc57]

You make an interesting point

But as a follow up. If your employee doesn't earn enough to support himself, should the taxpayer make up the difference?

Should an employer have the taxpayers support his employees just so that he can profit off of substandard wages?

Is the employee physically and mentally able to seek a higher paying job? Is he physically and mentally able to seek the training needed to qualify for a higher paying job? If he's able to work at a better job, or at least able to prepare for work at a better job, and chooses not to, then taxpayers should not be required to support him.

You seem to assume that there are ample higher paying jobs that remain unfilled.

What if he is functioning to the best of his abilities? Who should make up the difference in his menial wage and what it costs to support a family? His employer or the taxpayer?

Those who the taxpayers are unwilling to support. What should happen to them and their families?

Why did he start a family if he didn't have the ability to support one? Do you cook a meal with no stove, fire or ingredients?

 

[kwc57]

What happens to people who work 40 hours a week and do not make enough to support their families?
Answer: The taxpayer makes up the difference

Who should be responsible for supporting the person who works all week for you? The employer or the taxpayer?

The person. Ultimately, they are responsible for supporting themselves. The employer is only responsible to pay them what the particular job is worth. If it isn't enough, you get a second job or better yourself to get a better, higher paying job. The government should have no responsibility at all.

 

[Amelia]

Is the employee physically and mentally able to seek a higher paying job? Is he physically and mentally able to seek the training needed to qualify for a higher paying job? If he's able to work at a better job, or at least able to prepare for work at a better job, and chooses not to, then taxpayers should not be required to support him.

You seem to assume that there are ample higher paying jobs that remain unfilled.

What if he is functioning to the best of his abilities? Who should make up the difference in his menial wage and what it costs to support a family? His employer or the taxpayer?

Those who the taxpayers are unwilling to support. What should happen to them and their families?

Why did he start a family if he didn't have the ability to support one? Do you cook a meal with no stove, fire or ingredients?

Some people started families when they had good jobs and reasonable expectations of keeping their jobs.

Then they lost them.

Maybe after that they were only able to find the kind of job a high school student traditionally takes. The kind of job which sadly some employers use as a strike against an applicant for a higher level job.

But is that a reason to expect the kind of job a high school student traditionally takes to pay wages high enough to support a family?